The Pass Defense

[ivanvamp]

Two games in, way too small a sample size to matter, because one game can swing these numbers so crazily.  And the QB competition hasn't been very good.  Nonetheless, here's where NE stands at the moment…..
 
- Opp QB rating:  #1 (52.3)
- Opp Yds per game:  #4 (166)
- Opp YPA:  t#1 (5.0)
- Opp Comp %:  #1 (54.4%)
- INT:  #1 (5)
- Sacks:  t#4 (7)
 
In other words, so far so good.  Good pressure + excellent cover guys = success.

 

[jsinger121]

Two games in, way too small a sample size to matter, because one game can swing these numbers so crazily.  And the QB competition hasn't been very good.  Nonetheless, here's where NE stands at the moment…..
 
- Opp QB rating:  #1 (52.3)
- Opp Yds per game:  #4 (166)
- Opp YPA:  t#1 (5.0)
- Opp Comp %:  #1 (54.4%)
- INT:  #1 (5)
- Sacks:  t#4 (7)
 
In other words, so far so good.  Good pressure + excellent cover guys = success.

 
And without Brandon Browner for the first 2 games and Jamie Collins was missing yesterday.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

The luxury of this pass defense is we get to discuss sample size, quality of opponent, and players due back while we wonder the validity of the #1 ranking. Beats the hell out of trying to fix a pass defense that was ranked in the basement. Those discussions occurred on this board not long ago if I recall correctly. 

 

[JMDurron]

Since 1 of those 2 games prominently featured a QB who seemed completely incapable of hitting his wide open WRs for a full half of football (Tannehill), I wouldn't read much into those stats.  
 
I'm pretty excited by how Ryan looked against the Vikings, but this ridiculously small sample size indicates to me that this is still a defense that will absolutely be destroyed by capable TEs and pass-catching RBs due to a LB corps that has some coverage issues, and it's not like Chung is going to help.  Strong deep (McCourty) and on the edges (Revis and Ryan), but weak in the middle (LBs and Chung) is my hilariously uneducated take on what they've shown so far.  
 
Being able to put Browner on a TE would seem to be the missing link, but it's a big missing piece until then.  

 

[SoxVindaloo]

Since 1 of those 2 games prominently featured a QB who seemed completely incapable of hitting his wide open WRs for a full half of football (Tannehill), I wouldn't read much into those stats.  
 
I'm pretty excited by how Ryan looked against the Vikings, but this ridiculously small sample size indicates to me that this is still a defense that will absolutely be destroyed by capable TEs and pass-catching RBs due to a LB corps that has some coverage issues, and it's not like Chung is going to help.  Strong deep (McCourty) and on the edges (Revis and Ryan), but weak in the middle (LBs and Chung) is my hilariously uneducated take on what they've shown so far.  
 
Being able to put Browner on a TE would seem to be the missing link, but it's a big missing piece until then.  

If Collins is there he has shown to be really good in coverage against TEs. If he is hurt for a long time, well thank Jesus that we have the Raiders this week. we then have to bridge the gap with ?? against the Chiefs until Browner returns Week 5.

 

[soxfan121]

I'm biased but I don't understand how you can have this discussion without this link, nor do I understand why this discussion isn't happening in the thread for that article. 

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

According to many, Browner looked at best slightly below average in training camp practices and he didn't exactly cover himself in glory during the pre season games. Here endeth the stick in the mud period.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm biased but I don't understand how you can have this discussion without this link, nor do I understand why this discussion isn't happening in the thread for that article. 

 
I didn't notice it.  Sorry.  Feel free to merge this in there if you like.  Makes no difference to me.

 

[SumnerH]

I'm biased but I don't understand how you can have this discussion without this link, nor do I understand why this discussion isn't happening in the thread for that article. 

a) "This page has a redirect loop" still.
b) This thread is talking about NE's current defense; that (awesome) article is about general NFL defensive theory.

 

[Stitch01]

I'm biased but I don't understand how you can have this discussion without this link, nor do I understand why this discussion isn't happening in the thread for that article. 

That's an awesome primer on pass defenses.  This is a discussion about the 2014 Pats defense.  Im not sure why this discussion would happen there naturally?

But that's actually a question I had maybe better suited for the sticky. Ive broadly found myself sort of confused about having two different forums and what discussion should go where?  There were two gamethreads Sunday, should different types of content go in different gamethreads?  Should we actually be discussing the Patriots in broader threads about football concepts on the new site?  I think a fair amount of the content on the new site is great, must read stuff, but I sort of don't get exactly what we should be posting here and there and the quoted post leaves me a bit more confused.
 
Maybe Im the only one, but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

That's an awesome primer on pass defenses.  This is a discussion about the 2014 Pats defense.  Im not sure why this discussion would happen there naturally?

But that's actually a question I had maybe better suited for the sticky. Ive broadly found myself sort of confused about having two different forums and what discussion should go where?  There were two gamethreads Sunday, should different types of content go in different gamethreads?  Should we actually be discussing the Patriots in broader threads about football concepts on the new site?  I think a fair amount of the content on the new site is great, must read stuff, but I sort of don't get exactly what we should be posting here and there and the quoted post leaves me a bit more confused.
 
Maybe Im the only one, but thought it was worth mentioning.

I'm with you. I find it very confusing as well. The articles have been good and informative but having threads here about the articles and a comments section breaks up a lot of the good discussion that used to occur here and was more accessible throw mobile apps and whatnot.

 

[Reverend]

That's an awesome primer on pass defenses.  This is a discussion about the 2014 Pats defense.  Im not sure why this discussion would happen there naturally?

But that's actually a question I had maybe better suited for the sticky. Ive broadly found myself sort of confused about having two different forums and what discussion should go where?  There were two gamethreads Sunday, should different types of content go in different gamethreads?  Should we actually be discussing the Patriots in broader threads about football concepts on the new site?  I think a fair amount of the content on the new site is great, must read stuff, but I sort of don't get exactly what we should be posting here and there and the quoted post leaves me a bit more confused.
 
Maybe Im the only one, but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

I'm with you. I find it very confusing as well. The articles have been good and informative but having threads here about the articles and a comments section breaks up a lot of the good discussion that used to occur here and was more accessible throw mobile apps and whatnot.

 
Thank you for bringing this up guys. And yeah, as Stitch indicated, we're trying to hammer out a conversation about this stuff here to make everything more clear. Some of it should be easy to clear up--for example, I think the comments and threads are linked so it's the same conversation, not a segmented one, although that's not immediately apparent. If you participate there, you're participating here. I think. Or something. Ask Nip up in the pinned thread.

 

[Tony C]

huh?

 

[JMDurron]

Well, I'd say that killed the discussion thoroughly enough.

To respond to the original topic, I thought that Collins had played all through the Miami game, which is when I recall the middle of the pass defense looking so lackluster. Missing Collins would obviously make the situation worse, but I'm not sure that it wasn't already mediocre at best with him in there. If Browner isn't an upgrade to the secondary as a whole, then I suppose we'll just have to hope that they improve as the season goes on?

 

[Old Fart Tree]

I'm biased but I don't understand how you can have this discussion without this link, nor do I understand why this discussion isn't happening in the thread for that article. 

 
Because we wanted to talk about it here?

 

[soxfan121]

 
Because we wanted to talk about it here?

 
I think you may have missed my apology for that three days ago (in the FC thread, where it belonged).
 
Now that JMDurron has attempted to re-start the discussion here, please direct any further comments or concerns to me by PM or in the FC thread. Thanks.

 

[soxfan121]

Well, I'd say that killed the discussion thoroughly enough.

To respond to the original topic, I thought that Collins had played all through the Miami game, which is when I recall the middle of the pass defense looking so lackluster. Missing Collins would obviously make the situation worse, but I'm not sure that it wasn't already mediocre at best with him in there. If Browner isn't an upgrade to the secondary as a whole, then I suppose we'll just have to hope that they improve as the season goes on?

 
Collins did not look "ready for primetime" in the Miami game and we may need to be patient as he learns on-the-job this season. 
 
The pass defense, as a whole, was much more effective against the Vikings although that may be a function of Cassel sucking out loud.

 

[Stitch01]

I thought Collins was fine on pass defense when he wasn't asked to cover Mike Wallace on crossing patterns. Wasn't conditioned to play every down in Miami and had some run struggles, but he was a net positive in the passing game.